There is the political correctness of giving without being condescending. There are the conflicting principles like “helping those who help themselves. There are economic issues with just being able to take care of one’s own family let alone helping others.

When we don’t have these basic skills that have already been mentioned, how can we effectively give our time instead of our money? Are we connected to each others’ lives enough to know when someone is in need and WHAT they need?

And there are many theories on church membership declines (including interpretations of the data that show it isn’t declining that much). Frank’s is just one of them. Although I see some truth in what he is saying, I tend to think it is just a piece of the pie rather than the major reason.

The core issue at hand is the fact that we have grown accustomed to and dependent upon an infrastructure whose continuance is neither guaranteed nor realistic. As I said in this post, division of labor has no inherent negative quality. It is only when we refuse to diversify our own talents and abilities that we put our futures at an even greater risk.

I don’t really see how a person’s feeling of self accomplishment really enters into what Connor was talking about. I see and agree with what you’re saying. I just don’t think it is the same subject.

I see the need to be multi-disciplined as a follow up to the “provident provider” article. It goes along with what Ciera said. If stuff happens (like we lose our job) our ability to do basic things really helps not only sustain, but pay the bills.

I know people who can’t cook. (Those earlier Carl’s Jr. commercials are not far from reality). Do you know how much money you save when you cook from scratch as opposed to buying Stouffer’s all the time? When you change your own oil vs. taking it to the mechanic? Do your own plumbing?

Growing a garden might be a fun hobby. But growing on a large scale (a small farm for the family) is different. You really need to know your stuff.

If stuff happens, and heaven forbid we have a breakdown of society, would we be able to even grow our own food? What about basic medicines? How many know first aid skills?

The list goes on. Not everyone had these skills back in the day. And people died.

The main points are:

1) If the SHTF we have these skills to provide security and support.

2) Even if we’re just on hard times, having skills greatly reduces the cost of living. Thus it will be easier to cope. And it will make it easier to find work if we can be handy.

I joke, but this is a serious issue. Also worth considering is the fact that most of our production capacity is housed overseas where prices are cheaper. What kind of adjustments will we have to make if one of these third-world powerhouses is destabilized or, worse, builds their way toward autonomous self-sufficience?

In other news, how many of us know how to cook with flour or sugar anymore? It’s not alarmism but a real problem. We’re too densely-packed, too inflexible.